alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Breadcrumb

1. Hogar

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

National Animal Health Laboratory

Network Funding Opportunities

Last Modified: 

Print

The 2018 Farm Bill funding enhanced the abilities of the National Animal Health

Laboratory Network (NAHLN) to provide early detection of significant animal disease,

rapid response to the presence of a confirmed disease, and appropriate recovery

from an outbreak.

The NAHLN works alongside the National Animal Disease Preparedness and

Response Program and the National Animal Vaccine and Veterinary

Countermeasures Bank. Together, these programs are safeguarding U.S. animal

health and protecting the livelihoods of U.S. farmers and ranchers.

Open NAHLN Funding Opportunities

No hay oportunidades abiertas en este momento. Vuelva pronto o regístrese para

recibir correos electrónicos sobre oportunidades futuras.

Ver mas Ver Menos

Sign up for email updates.
Information for Applicants

How To Apply for APHIS Funding Opportunities: Getting Started 

Guidelines for Using Funds 

Grants and Cooperative Agreements 

Accomplishments and Funded Projects

APHIS has invested $21 million through the NAHLN laboratories to support 97

projects intended to enhance disease prevention and preparedness. Details about

the funded projects are below.

In FY 2023, we provided $2.3 million for 14 projects focused on (1) local

stockpile and capacity support, (2) information technology standardization, (3)

high-capacity diagnostic equipment, and (4) technical personnel.

In FY 2022, we provided $4.4 million for 21 projects focused on (1) increasing

capacity for disease testing, (2) increasing capability to handle surge samples,

and (3) enhancing laboratory emergency preparedness.

In FY 2022, we also provided an additional $4.3 million for seven projects aimed

at developing and evaluating point-of-care diagnostic tests for foreign animal

diseases. These projects were jointly supported by NAHLN and NADPRP.

In FY 2021, we provided $5.1 million for 30 projects focused on (1) test method

development and validation, (2) enhancing emergency preparedness, (3)

electronic data management, and (4) exercises and drills.

In FY 2020, we provided $5 million for 26 projects focused on (1) increasing

testing capability and capacity, (2) enhancing biosafety and biosecurity, (3)

enhancing electronic messaging capabilities, and (4) increasing emergency

preparedness.

To learn more, view the NAHLN Funded Project List FY 2020-FY 2023 (1.13 MB).
WAIVER
AND AMENDMENT NO. 8  TO REVOLVING CREDIT AND SECURITY AGREEMENT
  BACKGROUND
    Definitions
 Waiver Existing Defaults
 Amendment




---



##### 



Eighth
Amendment
 Eighth Amendment Effective Date
  6.5 Financial Covenants
 Fixed Charge Coverage Ratio
 Fixed ChargeFiscal Quarter Ending:
    
    Coverage Ratio:March 31,2011
    
    No TestJune 30, 2011
    
    No TestSeptember 30, 2011
    
    No TestDecember 31, 2011 and
each fiscal quarter ending thereafter
    
    
    1.25 to 1.00
 Leverage Ratio
 Fiscal Quarter Ending:
    
    Leverage Ratio:March 31,2011
    
    
    17.5 to 1.0June 30, 2011
    
    
    16.5 to 1.0September 30, 2011
    
    
    10.25 to 1.0December 31, 2011 and
each fiscal quarter ending thereafter
    
    
    4.00 to 1.0
 Minimum Global EBITDA
 2




---



##### 



Fiscal Quarter Ending:
    
    Minimum EBITDA:March 31, 2011
    
    $
    2,750,000June 30, 2011
    
    $
    3,000,000September 30, 2011
    
    $
    5,000,000December 31, 2011 and
each fiscal quarter ending thereafter
    
    $
    7,000,000
 Availability
 Minimum Domestic EBITDA
 Fiscal Quarter Ending:
    
    Minimum EBITDA:March 31,2011
    
    $
    525,000June 30, 2011
    
    $
    625,000September 30, 2011
    
    $
    900,000December 31, 2011 and
each fiscal quarter ending thereafter
    
    No Test
  Dividends provided provided however
 3




---



##### 



Term Term
 Conditions of Effectiveness
 Consent Exhibit A
 Condition Subsequent
 Representations, Warranties and Covenants
     4




---



##### 



Effect on the Loan Agreement
   Release
 5




---



##### 



Governing Law
 Cost
and Expenses
 Headings
 Counterparts; Facsimile Signatures
  6




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
 PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as
Lender and as AgentBy:
    /s/ John TrieuName:
    John TrieuTitle:
    Vice PresidentDRI CORPORATIONBy:
    /s/ David L TurneyName:
    David L TurneyTitle:
    Chairman and CEODIGITAL RECORDERS, INC.By:
    /s/ David L TurneyName:
    David L TurneyTitle:
    Chairman and CEOTWINVISION OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.By:
    /s/ David L TurneyName:
    David L TurneyTitle:
    Chairman and CEO
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 982 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 982

 To ensure that any authority of the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund to 
borrow amounts from the Treasury is used only to pay mortgage insurance 
                                claims.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 13, 2015

 Mr. Capuano introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To ensure that any authority of the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund to 
borrow amounts from the Treasury is used only to pay mortgage insurance 
                                claims.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``End Unnecessary Borrowing Act of 
2015''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON USE OF BORROWING AUTHORITY.

    Paragraph (2) of section 205(f) of the National Housing Act (12 
U.S.C. 1711(f)(2)) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(2)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
            ``(B) Subparagraph (A) may not be construed to authorize or 
        require the Secretary to borrow any amounts to comply with the 
        capital ratio requirement under such subparagraph.
            ``(C) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
        authority of the Secretary under this Act or otherwise to 
        borrow amounts from the Treasury of the United States for the 
        Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund may be used only to the extent 
        necessary to pay claims on mortgage insurance that is an 
        obligation of such Fund.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 12.2

Public Service Company of Oklahoma
Consolidated Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
For Years Ended December 31,

                             1999       1998      1997      1996      1995
                           ---------------------------------------------------
                                       (thousands, except ratios)

Operating income           $99,810   $115,008   $81,776   $101,737  $111,769
Adjustments
  Income taxes              18,562     52,494    12,313     25,257    37,490
  Provision for deferred
    income taxes            15,198     (1,693)    8,448     (1,328)    2,704
Deferred investment tax
  credits                   (1,791)    (1,795)   (2,278)    (2,784)   (2,789)
Charges for investments
  and plant development
  costs, net of tax             --         --       (75)   (35,708)       --
Other income and
  deductions                   745       (951)      729        (95)    2,274
Allowance for borrowed
  and equity funds used
   during construction       1,636      2,029     2,317      1,722     3,734
                           ---------------------------------------------------
     Earnings             $134,160   $165,092  $103,230    $88,801  $155,182
                           ===================================================

Fixed charges:
  Interest on long-term
    debt                   $26,528    $29,136   $30,474    $30,555   $29,594
  Interest on short-term
    debt                     7,058      4,107     4,100      5,623     6,355
  Distributions on Trust
    Preferred Securities     6,000      6,000     3,967         --        --
                           ---------------------------------------------------
     Fixed Charges         $39,586   $39,243    $38,541   $36,178   $35,949
                           ===================================================


Ratio of earnings to
fixed charges                3.39       4.21      2.68      2.45      4.32



                                      4-17
Highlights and Facts 

 Entitlement decisions are made by the Department of Labor, Office of Workers’ 

Compensation (OWCP) not the AOC.

 Any employee who desires to file a claim MUST be allowed to do so even when the 

validity of the claim is in question. 

 Employees who elect to go into a LWOP status and apply for compensation for a wage 

loss do not have the option of using their leave while their claim is pending approval with 

OWCP. 

 Employees who enter into a LWOP status and who file for loss wages with the OWCP 

cannot be paid by the AOC at the same time. Federal law prohibits employees from 

receiving pay from two Federal agencies at the same time. Any employee who incurs this 

error should bring the matter immediately to the attention of the Workers’ Compensation 

Program Unit (WCPU). 

 All injury and illness claims must be completed by the supervisor within 5 days of the 

injured employee’s signature. If additional time is needed, the WCPU must be informed 

of the reason for the delay. 

 Employees are encouraged to assume an active role in the workers’ compensation 

process. After all, it is the employee’s health and benefits that are at stake. 

 Supervisors are obligated to provide injured employees with limited duty whenever 

possible. 

 Employees who sustain either an injury or occupational disease may experience a 

recurrence of the medical condition or disability. For questions regarding the filing of a 

claim, contact either the Field Coordinator in your jurisdiction or the WCPU. 

 FECA coverage is extended to Federal employees regardless of the length of time on the 

job.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-40767 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus FRANCISCO PUENTE-VASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-01-CR-141-1

-------------------- March 27, 2002 Before REAVLEY, DAVIS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Francisco Puente-Vasquez appeals his jury conviction and his sentence for importing and possessing with the intent to distribute more than 50 kilograms of marijuana, violations of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 952(a) & 960(a)(1). He argues pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000) that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he knew the type and quantity of the controlled substance which he imported and possessed and that 21 U.S.C. § 841, 952, and 960 are facially unconstitutional.No. 01-40767 -2- Puente argues that Apprendi alters the scienter requirements of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a), 952(a), and 960(a)(1), requiring the Government to prove that he knew the type and quantity of drugs he imported and possessed. We have previously held that these statutes are “specific intent” statutes which require a defendant to have only knowledge that he possessed an illegal drug, not that he know the specific drug he possessed. See United States v. Valencia-Gonzales , 172 F.3d 344, 345-46 (5th Cir. 1999); see also United States v. Restrepo-Granada , 575 F.2d 524, 527 (5th Cir. 1978). Apprendi does not alter this analysis. Puente’s argument that the statutes under which he was convicted are facially unconstitutional in light of Apprendi is, as he concedes, foreclosed by United States v. Slaughter , 238 F.3d 580, 582 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 121 S. Ct. 2015 (2001). He raises the issue solely to preserve it for Supreme Court review. This court is bound by its precedent absent an intervening Supreme Court decision or a subsequent en banc decision. See United States v. Short , 181 F.3d 620, 624 (5th Cir. 1999), cert. denied , 528 U.S. 1091 (2000).
AFFIRMED.
Breadcrumb

1. Hogar

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

National Veterinary Accreditation

Program

Last Modified: 

Print

The mission of the National Veterinary Accreditation Program (NVAP) is to provide

accredited veterinarians with the information they need to ensure the health of the

Nation's livestock and animal population and to protect the public health and wellbeing.

For Veterinarians 

Locate an Accredited Veterinarian 
For Veterinary Students 

Veterinary Students

Introduction to NVAP: Part One (Video)

Introduction to NVAP: Part Two (Video)

Contact Us

NVAP Coordinators

For questions about NVAP, contact your local NVAP Coordinator by selecting your

State or Territory from the dropdown menu below or visit More Information About

NVAP.

- Select a State - ▾

Loading...

All Contacts
Export requirements frequently change. Obtain current export requirements for live

animals or animal products before each shipment.

Related Links

APHIS-Approved Laboratories 

APHIS Pet Travel

International Regulations for Non-Pet Animal Export

NVAP Reference Guide

Orientation Program Schedule 

NVAP Training Modules for Accreditation Renewal

Veterinary Services Process Streamlining (VSPS) Interstate Library
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Dow 6lrl o&aM&. yo8 

0 Ar 1010 

*u, I@ vi1 ht- 

% 

utoa a 1i.d to hr 

partlr*l.r me tao 

*taH la thlr OPl OR. 

We are la rcorlpt 

la vhloh pa8 aak the foil 

'A phJrlelBa 'rho 

ntly l pvreolrtr y o uoplnloa r 

phyrlolaa’ s ofrioe la rush 

olrauartssorr 

ho8e.. 

rhould be llorarsa a# a maternlt~ 

(uncrrroorlag eurr) 

hrtlele 444t, Jblsrd Old1 Statutwr of tsxw, 

rrtr out the fart rltuatior umlrr vhlh a mtoralt~ home lr 

rwylre4 to wouro a Uoorro. The raid art1010 fonda, In 

.- part, aI) iollwrt 
Honorable George w. GOX, paa* e 

‘1. itarf inaividuti, fin, arroalatloa, 

or 09rporatlon. ovnln(, ktepln6, oonduotlng or 

una&ln# 8n lnrtltutlon or horn for tin boardor rheltcrlng OS l&art rhllaren or oo- 

' or 8w Wag-in lhor*ltal, 

irrnlt~ horn. or m 

cppt or u, shall obtain an l nn lloenrr 

whioh shall bt lcaued w the Statr ë8í oard of 

Xrrlth vlthtit fee, thall not bo trmrtrrablr 

to other persona or other prealmar ana shall 

rxplrt on thr thirty-flrrt da 

nrnt follovl~ thr lrruamr. 1( tf+?rombor 

(Undtrroorlng our@) 

It 18 important to note tbt one of the noowrar~ rlemwntr 

u~:on vbiooh this llotntr rttqlrtrcnt 1~ based 18 the ohtirElng 

of a fr8 or oom~~tnration for tha uB8 of the wmd, room or 

place. 

Under the faotr 8a rou hate rtattd them, no ire is 

Charged for thir partloular ernloe. Your letter rtateo: 

‘The phplolan doer not ohe.rge a fee for the dtllvm~ of R 

oatlent in thit roa l l l I. It would therefore l -m olear 

that the ~tl~rtry em dororlbtd la your 9-r would not 

come under the alasrlfloatlon of thort places of *-hioh a llctnce 

18 required. Apcarmtlr It wta the intention of the Leglalaturo in parrlng thlr artlolo to lloenrt all such oomtrclal 

lnrtltutloar. 

Ye therefore rtrptotfullf adrlrt you that under the 

irot8 am stated the phyyrlolanlr of:.lor would not ba rtoulrtd 

to stoure a llotnar as a matcrnlty home. 

Yourc. rely truly 

ATTSRNEY GERF.%.L 9F TLXAS 

TBI:RS 

By (PI Credtrlk 0. Ittl;l 

Frrdtrti B. 16~1~ 

Arrlrtent 

APPROVED NL 12, 1940 

Olrnn Il. Ltwir 

ACT110 AWDRNEY GICE;'AL 3F TFXAS 

A??ROVkD 

op~~l~onaoulttre 

Chairman
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7305

ROBERT LEE BROCK,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

EDDIE PEARSON; WARDEN, Indian Creek Correctional Center,

Respondents - Appellees,

and

RUDOLPH BUMGARDNER; THOMAS WOODS; RAYMOND

ROBERTSON,

Respondents.

No. 95-7671

ROBERT LEE BROCK,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

EDDIE PEARSON; WARDEN, Indian Creek Correctional Center,

Respondents - Appellees,
2

and

RUDOLPH BUMGARDNER; THOMAS WOODS; RAYMOND

ROBERTSON,

Respondents.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Magistrate

Judge. (CA-95-247-R, CA-95-326-R)

Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 2, 1996

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Lee Brock, Appellant Pro Se. Robert B. Condon, Assistant

Attorney General, Rita Marie Sampson, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
1 The parties consented to the magistrate judge's jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1988).

2 The magistrate judge found the reconsideration motion untimely. We find that it was meritless and affirm the order denying

it on that basis.

3

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's orders1

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition and denying

reconsideration.2 We have reviewed the record and the magistrate

judge's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeals

on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. Brock v. Pearson, Nos.

CA-95-247-R; CA-95-326-R (W.D. Va. Aug. 16, 1995; Sept. 15, 1995).

We deny Brock's motions for immediate relief, to remand, and for

deconsolidation. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of AtlanticTele-Network, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ending September 30,2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Justin D. Benincasa, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurerof the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuantto § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                       The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                       The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|                         | Atlantic  Tele-Network, Inc. |
|------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
|                         |                              |
| Date:  November 9, 2009 | By:                               | /s/  Justin D. Benincasa |
|                         |                              | Justin  D. Benincasa |
|                         |                              | Chief  Financial Officer and Treasurer |

 

----
#### Association of Apartment Owners of Wailuna v. James Hardie Bldg. Products Co.

26257

08/30/2006

Vacated & remanded
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 6559** 

HARVEY PATRICK SHORT , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. JUDGE JENNIFER BAILEY

- WALKER , Defendant

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the So uthern District of West Virginia , at Charleston
. John T. Copenhaver, Jr. , District Judge. ( 2:09

- cv - 01096 )

Submitted : August 26, 2010 Decided: September 2, 2010

Before KING and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Affirme d by un published per curiam opinion
.
Harvey P atrick Short, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Harvey P atrick Short appeals the district court ’ s order accepting the recommendation of the magi strate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (200 6 ) complaint under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2006) . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Short v. Bailey

- Wa lker , No. 2:09

-

cv - 01096 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 30, 2010)
. Short’s motions for an order compelling the state court to adjudicate his state habeas corpus petition and for an omnibus habeas corpus hearing are denied. We dispense with oral argument because the fac ts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
STATE OF MINNESOTA 

IN SUPREME COURT 

Al4-0924 

In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against 

John B. Arnold, a Minnesota Attorney, 

Registration No. 3190. 

ORDER 

The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility has filed a 

petition for disciplinary action alleging that respondent John B. Arnold committed 

professional misconduct warranting public discipline, namely, forging his clients' 

signatures on a settlement agreement, in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(b). and 

(c). Respondent pleaded guilty to aggravated forgery, a felony, and identity theft, a gross 

misdemeanor. The district court stayed adjudication of respondent's guilt on the 

aggravated forgery charge, convicted him of identity theft, and placed him on probation. 

Respondent unconditionally admits the allegations in the petition, waives his 

rights under Rule 14, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR), and has 

entered into a stipulation with the Director in which they jointly recommend that the 

appropriate discipline is suspension from the practice of law for a minimum of 1 year. 

This court has independently r~viewed the file and approves the jointly 

recommended disposition. 

Based. upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein, 

1 
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Respondent John B. Arnold is suspended from the practice of law with no 

right to petition for reinstatement for a minimum of 1 year; 

2. Respondent may petition for reinstatement pursuant to Rule 18(a)-(d), 

RLPR. Reinstatement is conditioned on successful completion of the professional 

responsibility portion of the state bar examination, satisfaction of continuing legal 

education requirements pursuant to Rule 18( e ), RLPR, and proof of compliance with the 

terms of respondent's criminal probation;. 

3. Respondent shall comply with Rule 26, RLPR (requiring notice of 

suspension to clients, opposing counsel, and tribunals), and shall pay $900 in costs 

pursuant to Rule 24, RLPR; and · 

4. If respondent violates his criminal probation, the Director may, after notice 

to respondent and an opportunity to be heard, move the court to impose additional 

discipline. 

Dated: June 26, 2014 

BY THE COURT: 

Alan C. Page 

Associate Justice. 

2
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 23

- 00307

- CR

K YLE G ORDON C OX

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 355th District

Court

of Hood County ( CR15602 )

August 22, 2024

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice

Sudderth

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Bonnie Sudderth

Chief Justice Bonnie Sudderth